ArticleBMC public health2024
Impact of emergency financial support program on testing demand, SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, and social isolation during COVID-19 outbreak in Brazil: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrograms offering financial support have been established to mitigate the economic fallout and vulnerabilities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, financial incentives were introduced to promote compliance with social isolation measures, thereby preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections and transmission. However, few low- and middle-income countries have implemented financial aid to alleviate the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated the association between the Brazilian Emergency Aid (EA) Program and SARS-CoV-2 testing demand, SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, and social isolation levels.
methodsIn this quasi-experimental study, we assessed microdata information from 380,000 individuals surveyed in the COVID-19 National Household Sample Survey (COVID-19 NHSS) between July 1, 2020, and Nov 30, 2020. Individuals meeting the EA eligibility criteria, those who have taken the SARS-CoV-2 test, those diagnosed with COVID-19, and/or those complying with social isolation measures were included. Beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were matched (1:1) using propensity score matching, combined with the entropy balance technique and inverse probability treatment weighting, considering all relevant socioeconomic and health covariates. We performed logistic regression to compute the monthly average impact of EA benefits on the outcomes above.
resultsWe included 171,183 performed tests, 19,218 COVID-19 cases, and individuals' self-response in complying with mild (N = 660,297), moderate (N = 597,159), strict social isolation (N = 149,125), and those who did not constrain social gatherings (N = 1,406,581). EA recipients showed greater testing demand (November; odds ratio [OR] = 1.014, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.001-1.026); however, this did not significantly reduce SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. Beneficiaries adhered better to mild isolation from July-September (September; OR: 1.017, 95% CI: 1.007-1.028), with no significant improvement from October-November. EA beneficiaries did not adhere to moderate (July, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.94-0.97; November, OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.80-0.86) or strict (July, OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.75-0.84; November, OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.73-0.81) isolation compared to non-beneficiaries.
conclusionsDespite the severe COVID-19 situation in Brazil owing to the lack of effective public health policies and government resistance to scientific guidance, being an EA beneficiary was associated with increased testing demand and better adherence to mild social isolation measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.